Reduction of PTV margins for elective pelvic lymph nodes in online adaptive radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cone beam CT (CBCT) based online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) is a new development in radiotherapy. With oART, the requirements for planning target volume (PTV) margins differ from standard therapy because motion occurs during a session. In this study, we aim to evaluate a margin reduction for locally advanced prostate patients treated with oART.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Intrafraction motion of the elective pelvic lymph nodes was evaluated by two radiation therapists (RTTs) for 150 fractions from 10 prostate patients treated with oART. PTV margins of 3, 4 and 5 mm where added to these lymph nodes for all patients. The seven first patients were treated with 5 mm PTV margin, while the last three patients were treated with 4 mm margin. After treatment, the RTTs reviewed the verification CBCTs and evaluated whether the various PTV margins would have covered the adapted clinical target volume, scoring each fraction as approved, inconclusive or rejected. Couch shifts corresponding to the rigid prostate match between the CBCTs were analyzed with respect to the RTT evaluation.

RESULTS

The RTTs approved a 4 mm margin in 95% of the fractions, while 2% of the fractions were rejected. For a 3 mm margin, 57% of the fractions were approved, while 5% were rejected. The scoring from the two RTTs was consistent; e.g., for 3 mm, one RTT approved 58% of the fractions, while the other approved 55%. If the couch was moved less than 2 mm in any direction, 70% of the fractions were approved for a 3 mm margin, compared to 32% for shifts greater than 2 mm.

CONCLUSION

It is safe to reduce the PTV margin from 5 to 4 mm for the elective pelvic lymph nodes for prostate patients treated with oART. Further margin reductions can be motivated for patients presenting little intrafraction motion.

Quality assurance for on-table adaptive magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy: A software tool to complement secondary dose calculation and failure modes discovered in clinical routine

Online adaption of treatment plans on a magnetic resonance (MR)‐Linac enables the daily creation of new (adapted) treatment plans using current anatomical information of the patient as seen on MR images. Plan quality assurance (QA) relies on a secondary dose calculation (SDC) that is required because a pretreatment measurement is impossible during the adaptive workflow. However, failure mode and effect analysis of the adaptive planning process shows a large number of error sources, and not all of them are covered by SDC. As the complex multidisciplinary adaption process takes place under time pressure, additional software solutions for pretreatment per‐fraction QA need to be used. It is essential to double‐check SDC input to ensure a safe treatment delivery. Here, we present an automated treatment plan check tool for adaptive radiotherapy (APART) at a 0.35 T MR‐Linac. It is designed to complement the manufacturer‐provided adaptive QA tool comprising SDC. Checks performed by APART include contour analysis, electron density map examinations, and fluence modulation complexity controls. For nine of 362 adapted fractions (2.5%), irregularities regarding missing slices in target volumes and organs at risks as well as in margin expansion of target volumes have been found. This demonstrates that mistakes occur and can be detected by additional QA measures, especially contour analysis. Therefore, it is recommended to implement further QA tools additional to what the manufacturer provides to facilitate an informed decision about the quality of the treatment plan.

Initial clinical experience of patient-specific QA of treatment delivery in online adaptive radiotherapy using a 1.5 T MR-Linac

Purpose. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a commercial 1.5 T MR-Linac by analyzing its patient-specific quality assurance (QA) data collected during one full year of clinical operation.Methods and Materials. The patient-specific QA system consisted of offline delivery QA (DQA) and online calculation-based QA. Offline DQA was based on ArcCHECK-MR combined with an ionization chamber. Online QA was performed using RadCalc that calculated and compared the point dose calculation with the treatment planning system (TPS). A total of 24 patients with 189 treatment fractions were enrolled in this study. Gamma analysis was performed and the threshold that encompassed 95% of QA results (T95) was reported. The plan complexity metric was calculated for each plan and compared with the dose measurements to determine whether any correlation existed.Results. All point dose measurements were within 5% deviation. The mean gamma passing rates of the group data were found to be 96.8 ± 4.0% and 99.6 ± 0.7% with criteria of 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm, respectively. T95 of 87.4% and 98.2% was reported for the overall group with the two passing criteria, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between adaptive treatments with adapt-to-position (ATP) and adapt-to-shape (ATS), whilst the category of pelvis data showed a better passing rate than other sites. Online QA gave a mean deviation of 0.2 ± 2.2%. The plan complexity metric was positively correlated with the mean dose difference whilst the complexity of the ATS cohort had larger variations than the ATP cohort.Conclusions. A patient-specific QA system based on ArcCHECK-MR, solid phantom and ionization chamber has been well established and implemented for validation of treatment delivery of a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Our QA data obtained over one year confirms that good agreement between TPS calculation and treatment delivery was achieved.

The Role of Daily Adaptive Stereotactic MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Renal Cell Cancer

Simple Summary

Standard treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is surgery. Stereotactic radiotherapy given in a few high dose fractions is a promising treatment for this indication and could be an alternative option for patients unsuitable for surgery. Stereotactic MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is clinically implemented as a new technique for precise treatment delivery of abdominal tumors, like RCC. In this study, we evaluated the clinical impact of stereotactic MRgRT given in five fractions of 8 Gy and routine plan re-optimization for 36 patients with large primary RCCs. Our evaluation showed good oncological results with minimal side-effects. Even in this group with large tumors, daily plan re-optimization was only needed in a minority of patients who can be identified upfront. This is a favorable result since online MRgRT plan adaptation is a time-consuming procedure. In these patients, MRgRT delivery will be faster, and these patients could be candidates for even less fractions per treatment.

Abstract

Novel magnetic-resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) permits real-time soft-tissue visualization, respiratory-gated delivery with minimal safety margins, and time-consuming daily plan re-optimisation. We report on early clinical outcomes of MRgRT and routine plan re-optimization for large primary renal cell cancer (RCC). Thirty-six patients were treated with MRgRT in 40 Gy/5 fractions. Prior to each fraction, re-contouring of tumor and normal organs on a pretreatment MR-scan allowed daily plan re-optimization. Treatment-induced toxicity and radiological responses were scored, which was followed by an offline analysis to evaluate the need for such daily re-optimization in 180 fractions. Mean age and tumor diameter were 78.1 years and 5.6 cm, respectively. All patients completed MRgRT with an average fraction duration of 45 min. Local control (LC) and overall survival rates at one year were 95.2% and 91.2%. No grade ≥3 toxicity was reported. Plans without re-optimization met institutional radiotherapy constraints in 83.9% of 180 fractions. Thus, daily plan re-optimization was required for only a minority of patients, who can be identified upfront by a higher volume of normal organs receiving 25 Gy in baseline plans. In conclusion, stereotactic MRgRT for large primary RCC showed low toxicity and high LC, while daily plan re-optimization was required only in a minority of patients.